Independent on energy

New England has a long and honorable tradition of independent thought and action, but when it comes to meeting modern energy needs, that taste for independence comes with a high price tag.

This summer has seen a "rolling protest" through the northern tier of Massachusetts on the part of activists opposed to a proposed natural gas pipeline. "No fracked gas for Mass" has become a popular slogan. And U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently authored an op-ed in the Berkshire Eagle declaring her opposition to the Kinder-Morgan pipeline project.

The popular opposition, shared by many of the state's Democratic lawmakers, is grounded in concerns over the environmental impact of rapidly expanding domestic energy production, particularly that of hydraulic fracturing.

Far less clear is what the protesters and opponents are offering as an alternative.

A bill to expand hydropower was defeated near the end of the last legislative session. Many activists view nuclear energy with suspicion — its legitimate claim to being a green energy offset by concerns over waste disposal. And while all concur that the phase-out of coal-fired power plants is good news for the environment, the solar and wind power that green activists consistently tout are simply not yet able to meet the region's energy needs, in spite of rapid expansion.

Between 2000 and 2012, according to ISO New England, the percentage of New England's electricity generation attributable to oil has fallen from 22 percent to under 1 percent, and coal has gone from 18 percent to 3 percent.

But renewable sources, while expanding in an absolute sense, are still responsible for just 13 percent of electricity generation, the same as in 2000. That's less than nuclear energy's 31 percent, and just a quarter of the contribution from natural gas, which has grown from 15 percent to 52 percent, the largest single source of electricity generation.

Meanwhile, the price of gas piped to homes in Massachusetts continues to run well ahead of the national average, with annual winter price hikes that are due both to the region's cold weather and constraints on supply.

In other regions of the country — such as North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Colorado — the economic opportunities that come with oil and gas production have led some Democrats to ease their opposition to energy production.

That doesn't mean New England's activists and (mostly) Democratic lawmakers should uncritically embrace the energy industry's every move. But independent-minded consumers must recognize that New England is already dependent upon natural gas, needs more of it to hold down prices, and will be consuming ever more gas produced by fracking, whether it comes through the existing Tennessee and Algonquin pipelines, or through a new line proposed by Kinder-Morgan.

Those marching against fracked gas have strong arguments, but have yet to show that solar and wind energies can match the contributions flooding into the market from points west.

Some advocates of renewable energy fear that becoming still more dependent on natural gas will price out alternatives and stymie research and development of alternative energies.

We think they should have more faith in themselves and their fellow New Englanders. Yankee practicality demands we obtain the energy we need now at the best price we can find, while Yankee ingenuity demands we not abandon our pursuit of still better alternatives. We think those two can — and must — coexist.